Evaluation of gravimetric-based technology-assisted workflow for nonhazardous sterile product preparation

Abstract Purpose The impact of a gravimetric-based technology-assisted workflow (TAWF) system on the nonhazardous compounded sterile product (CSP) error capture rate, production times, and pharmacy staff perceptions of compounding methods was evaluated. Methods For 2 weeks prior to TAWF implementati...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:American journal of health-system pharmacy 2019-07, Vol.76 (14), p.1071-1077
Hauptverfasser: Bucci, Tyler G, Hedrick, Tanner L, Roberts, Patricia A, Lin, Kinny, South, Mark D, Willoughby, Ian R, Eckel, Stephen F, Hess, Elizabeth T, Eberwein, Samuel, Amerine, Lindsey B
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1077
container_issue 14
container_start_page 1071
container_title American journal of health-system pharmacy
container_volume 76
creator Bucci, Tyler G
Hedrick, Tanner L
Roberts, Patricia A
Lin, Kinny
South, Mark D
Willoughby, Ian R
Eckel, Stephen F
Hess, Elizabeth T
Eberwein, Samuel
Amerine, Lindsey B
description Abstract Purpose The impact of a gravimetric-based technology-assisted workflow (TAWF) system on the nonhazardous compounded sterile product (CSP) error capture rate, production times, and pharmacy staff perceptions of compounding methods was evaluated. Methods For 2 weeks prior to TAWF implementation, staff used a punch clock to document production times with a volumetric method. Preimplementation error data were captured in a previous study; TAWF software captured error and time data in the postimplementation period. An online staff survey was administered before and 90 days after TAWF implementation to evaluate perceptions of the 2 methods. Results The error capture rates were 0.47% in the preimplementation period and 41.48% in the postimplementation period. The median time to prepare CSPs was significantly shorter in the preimplementation period versus the postimplementation period (p < 0.0001). The median time to check CSPs was significantly shorter at both 90 days (p < 0.0001) and 180 days (p = 0.0006) after TAWF implementation. When asked if the current method was the safest and the most accurate method for preparation, staff members’ perceptions improved from neutrality to agreement when the TAWF was implemented. Staff members were in agreement that the volumetric method was faster than the gravimetric TAWF method but were neutral as to whether the latter was the preferred compounding method. Conclusion The study results indicated that gravimetric-based TAWF preparation of nonhazardous CSPs is slower than manual volumetric preparation but can improve the error capture rate. Staff perceived the gravimetric TAWF method to be the safest and most accurate for producing CSPs.
doi_str_mv 10.1093/ajhp/zxz097
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2267404804</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><oup_id>10.1093/ajhp/zxz097</oup_id><sourcerecordid>2267404804</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3653-72071b872e8a955b7ce3be85b90ce5ae874a052f303b9bac607c4267eaafc9a13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kUFP3DAQhS1UVCjtiXuVU1WpCoztOI6PFQKKhNRLe7Ym3gkJeOPUTtiyv76moT1yGmv8zZvnZ8ZOOZxxMPIc7_vpfP97D0YfsGOupCqFAXiTz6BNKaARR-xdSvcAXDRQv2VHksuaN9ocs-HyEf2C8xDGInTFXcTHYUtzHFzZYqJNMZPrx-DD3VOJKQ1pzr1diA-dD7uiC7EYw9jjHuMmLKnI13HwVEwxbBY350oTxr_y79lhhz7Rh5d6wn5eXf64-Fbefr--ufh6WzpZK1lqAZq3jRbUoFGq1Y5kS41qDThSSI2uEJToJMjWtOhq0K4StSbEzhnk8oR9XnWzh18Lpdluh-TIexwpW7QiwxVUDVQZ_bKiLoaUInV2isMW45PlYJ-ztc_Z2jXbTH98EV7aLW3-s__CzEC1Arvgcw7pwS87irYn9HNvAfLGWuj8IdzkNyooc4vLPPZpHQvL9KqBPyaslkg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2267404804</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Evaluation of gravimetric-based technology-assisted workflow for nonhazardous sterile product preparation</title><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><source>MEDLINE</source><creator>Bucci, Tyler G ; Hedrick, Tanner L ; Roberts, Patricia A ; Lin, Kinny ; South, Mark D ; Willoughby, Ian R ; Eckel, Stephen F ; Hess, Elizabeth T ; Eberwein, Samuel ; Amerine, Lindsey B</creator><creatorcontrib>Bucci, Tyler G ; Hedrick, Tanner L ; Roberts, Patricia A ; Lin, Kinny ; South, Mark D ; Willoughby, Ian R ; Eckel, Stephen F ; Hess, Elizabeth T ; Eberwein, Samuel ; Amerine, Lindsey B</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Purpose The impact of a gravimetric-based technology-assisted workflow (TAWF) system on the nonhazardous compounded sterile product (CSP) error capture rate, production times, and pharmacy staff perceptions of compounding methods was evaluated. Methods For 2 weeks prior to TAWF implementation, staff used a punch clock to document production times with a volumetric method. Preimplementation error data were captured in a previous study; TAWF software captured error and time data in the postimplementation period. An online staff survey was administered before and 90 days after TAWF implementation to evaluate perceptions of the 2 methods. Results The error capture rates were 0.47% in the preimplementation period and 41.48% in the postimplementation period. The median time to prepare CSPs was significantly shorter in the preimplementation period versus the postimplementation period (p &lt; 0.0001). The median time to check CSPs was significantly shorter at both 90 days (p &lt; 0.0001) and 180 days (p = 0.0006) after TAWF implementation. When asked if the current method was the safest and the most accurate method for preparation, staff members’ perceptions improved from neutrality to agreement when the TAWF was implemented. Staff members were in agreement that the volumetric method was faster than the gravimetric TAWF method but were neutral as to whether the latter was the preferred compounding method. Conclusion The study results indicated that gravimetric-based TAWF preparation of nonhazardous CSPs is slower than manual volumetric preparation but can improve the error capture rate. Staff perceived the gravimetric TAWF method to be the safest and most accurate for producing CSPs.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1079-2082</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1535-2900</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/ajhp/zxz097</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31361879</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>US: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Chemistry Techniques, Analytical - methods ; Chemistry, Pharmaceutical - methods ; Drug Compounding - methods ; Humans ; Medication Errors - prevention &amp; control ; Pharmacy Service, Hospital - organization &amp; administration ; Software ; Time Factors ; Workflow</subject><ispartof>American journal of health-system pharmacy, 2019-07, Vol.76 (14), p.1071-1077</ispartof><rights>American Society of Health-System Pharmacists 2019. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com. 2019</rights><rights>Copyright © 2019 American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>American Society of Health-System Pharmacists 2019. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3653-72071b872e8a955b7ce3be85b90ce5ae874a052f303b9bac607c4267eaafc9a13</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3653-72071b872e8a955b7ce3be85b90ce5ae874a052f303b9bac607c4267eaafc9a13</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1578,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31361879$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bucci, Tyler G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hedrick, Tanner L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roberts, Patricia A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lin, Kinny</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>South, Mark D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Willoughby, Ian R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eckel, Stephen F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hess, Elizabeth T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eberwein, Samuel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Amerine, Lindsey B</creatorcontrib><title>Evaluation of gravimetric-based technology-assisted workflow for nonhazardous sterile product preparation</title><title>American journal of health-system pharmacy</title><addtitle>Am J Health Syst Pharm</addtitle><description>Abstract Purpose The impact of a gravimetric-based technology-assisted workflow (TAWF) system on the nonhazardous compounded sterile product (CSP) error capture rate, production times, and pharmacy staff perceptions of compounding methods was evaluated. Methods For 2 weeks prior to TAWF implementation, staff used a punch clock to document production times with a volumetric method. Preimplementation error data were captured in a previous study; TAWF software captured error and time data in the postimplementation period. An online staff survey was administered before and 90 days after TAWF implementation to evaluate perceptions of the 2 methods. Results The error capture rates were 0.47% in the preimplementation period and 41.48% in the postimplementation period. The median time to prepare CSPs was significantly shorter in the preimplementation period versus the postimplementation period (p &lt; 0.0001). The median time to check CSPs was significantly shorter at both 90 days (p &lt; 0.0001) and 180 days (p = 0.0006) after TAWF implementation. When asked if the current method was the safest and the most accurate method for preparation, staff members’ perceptions improved from neutrality to agreement when the TAWF was implemented. Staff members were in agreement that the volumetric method was faster than the gravimetric TAWF method but were neutral as to whether the latter was the preferred compounding method. Conclusion The study results indicated that gravimetric-based TAWF preparation of nonhazardous CSPs is slower than manual volumetric preparation but can improve the error capture rate. Staff perceived the gravimetric TAWF method to be the safest and most accurate for producing CSPs.</description><subject>Chemistry Techniques, Analytical - methods</subject><subject>Chemistry, Pharmaceutical - methods</subject><subject>Drug Compounding - methods</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Medication Errors - prevention &amp; control</subject><subject>Pharmacy Service, Hospital - organization &amp; administration</subject><subject>Software</subject><subject>Time Factors</subject><subject>Workflow</subject><issn>1079-2082</issn><issn>1535-2900</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kUFP3DAQhS1UVCjtiXuVU1WpCoztOI6PFQKKhNRLe7Ym3gkJeOPUTtiyv76moT1yGmv8zZvnZ8ZOOZxxMPIc7_vpfP97D0YfsGOupCqFAXiTz6BNKaARR-xdSvcAXDRQv2VHksuaN9ocs-HyEf2C8xDGInTFXcTHYUtzHFzZYqJNMZPrx-DD3VOJKQ1pzr1diA-dD7uiC7EYw9jjHuMmLKnI13HwVEwxbBY350oTxr_y79lhhz7Rh5d6wn5eXf64-Fbefr--ufh6WzpZK1lqAZq3jRbUoFGq1Y5kS41qDThSSI2uEJToJMjWtOhq0K4StSbEzhnk8oR9XnWzh18Lpdluh-TIexwpW7QiwxVUDVQZ_bKiLoaUInV2isMW45PlYJ-ztc_Z2jXbTH98EV7aLW3-s__CzEC1Arvgcw7pwS87irYn9HNvAfLGWuj8IdzkNyooc4vLPPZpHQvL9KqBPyaslkg</recordid><startdate>20190702</startdate><enddate>20190702</enddate><creator>Bucci, Tyler G</creator><creator>Hedrick, Tanner L</creator><creator>Roberts, Patricia A</creator><creator>Lin, Kinny</creator><creator>South, Mark D</creator><creator>Willoughby, Ian R</creator><creator>Eckel, Stephen F</creator><creator>Hess, Elizabeth T</creator><creator>Eberwein, Samuel</creator><creator>Amerine, Lindsey B</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><general>Copyright American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, Inc. All rights reserved</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20190702</creationdate><title>Evaluation of gravimetric-based technology-assisted workflow for nonhazardous sterile product preparation</title><author>Bucci, Tyler G ; Hedrick, Tanner L ; Roberts, Patricia A ; Lin, Kinny ; South, Mark D ; Willoughby, Ian R ; Eckel, Stephen F ; Hess, Elizabeth T ; Eberwein, Samuel ; Amerine, Lindsey B</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3653-72071b872e8a955b7ce3be85b90ce5ae874a052f303b9bac607c4267eaafc9a13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Chemistry Techniques, Analytical - methods</topic><topic>Chemistry, Pharmaceutical - methods</topic><topic>Drug Compounding - methods</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Medication Errors - prevention &amp; control</topic><topic>Pharmacy Service, Hospital - organization &amp; administration</topic><topic>Software</topic><topic>Time Factors</topic><topic>Workflow</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bucci, Tyler G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hedrick, Tanner L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roberts, Patricia A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lin, Kinny</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>South, Mark D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Willoughby, Ian R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eckel, Stephen F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hess, Elizabeth T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eberwein, Samuel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Amerine, Lindsey B</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>American journal of health-system pharmacy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bucci, Tyler G</au><au>Hedrick, Tanner L</au><au>Roberts, Patricia A</au><au>Lin, Kinny</au><au>South, Mark D</au><au>Willoughby, Ian R</au><au>Eckel, Stephen F</au><au>Hess, Elizabeth T</au><au>Eberwein, Samuel</au><au>Amerine, Lindsey B</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Evaluation of gravimetric-based technology-assisted workflow for nonhazardous sterile product preparation</atitle><jtitle>American journal of health-system pharmacy</jtitle><addtitle>Am J Health Syst Pharm</addtitle><date>2019-07-02</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>76</volume><issue>14</issue><spage>1071</spage><epage>1077</epage><pages>1071-1077</pages><issn>1079-2082</issn><eissn>1535-2900</eissn><abstract>Abstract Purpose The impact of a gravimetric-based technology-assisted workflow (TAWF) system on the nonhazardous compounded sterile product (CSP) error capture rate, production times, and pharmacy staff perceptions of compounding methods was evaluated. Methods For 2 weeks prior to TAWF implementation, staff used a punch clock to document production times with a volumetric method. Preimplementation error data were captured in a previous study; TAWF software captured error and time data in the postimplementation period. An online staff survey was administered before and 90 days after TAWF implementation to evaluate perceptions of the 2 methods. Results The error capture rates were 0.47% in the preimplementation period and 41.48% in the postimplementation period. The median time to prepare CSPs was significantly shorter in the preimplementation period versus the postimplementation period (p &lt; 0.0001). The median time to check CSPs was significantly shorter at both 90 days (p &lt; 0.0001) and 180 days (p = 0.0006) after TAWF implementation. When asked if the current method was the safest and the most accurate method for preparation, staff members’ perceptions improved from neutrality to agreement when the TAWF was implemented. Staff members were in agreement that the volumetric method was faster than the gravimetric TAWF method but were neutral as to whether the latter was the preferred compounding method. Conclusion The study results indicated that gravimetric-based TAWF preparation of nonhazardous CSPs is slower than manual volumetric preparation but can improve the error capture rate. Staff perceived the gravimetric TAWF method to be the safest and most accurate for producing CSPs.</abstract><cop>US</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><pmid>31361879</pmid><doi>10.1093/ajhp/zxz097</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1079-2082
ispartof American journal of health-system pharmacy, 2019-07, Vol.76 (14), p.1071-1077
issn 1079-2082
1535-2900
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2267404804
source Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current); MEDLINE
subjects Chemistry Techniques, Analytical - methods
Chemistry, Pharmaceutical - methods
Drug Compounding - methods
Humans
Medication Errors - prevention & control
Pharmacy Service, Hospital - organization & administration
Software
Time Factors
Workflow
title Evaluation of gravimetric-based technology-assisted workflow for nonhazardous sterile product preparation
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-13T04%3A05%3A49IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Evaluation%20of%20gravimetric-based%20technology-assisted%20workflow%20for%20nonhazardous%20sterile%20product%20preparation&rft.jtitle=American%20journal%20of%20health-system%20pharmacy&rft.au=Bucci,%20Tyler%20G&rft.date=2019-07-02&rft.volume=76&rft.issue=14&rft.spage=1071&rft.epage=1077&rft.pages=1071-1077&rft.issn=1079-2082&rft.eissn=1535-2900&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/ajhp/zxz097&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2267404804%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2267404804&rft_id=info:pmid/31361879&rft_oup_id=10.1093/ajhp/zxz097&rfr_iscdi=true